3 ms·

To quote from the very article you're citing: "At the urging of Mr. Navalny, tens of thousands of Russians — many of them in their teens and 20s — poured into

To quote from the very article you're citing: "At the urging of Mr. Navalny, tens of thousands of Russians — many of them in their teens and 20s — poured into the streets in scores of cities across the country on Sunday to protest endemic corruption among the governing elite, despite a blanket ban against unsanctioned rallies of any size." I'd say that organising the largest protest against Putin in a decade does make you "a leader of the opposition". And if you're questioning his involvement with these protests, I'll let this Russian court make my point: "The court on Monday also fined him about $350 for organizing an illegal demonstration."

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
zigzigzag 10y ago
No it doesn't. "Leader of the opposition" has a clear meaning. By your definition Nick Clegg is leader of the British opposition because he was involved in organising a recent big anti-Brexit protest, but nobody in the UK would recognise such a definition. Regardless of what you may personally believe about Russia or its politics, the statement that Navalny is "leader of the opposition" is simply 100% factually false by any hard, observable data.
- matt4077 10y ago
  leader |ˈlēdər| noun 1 the person who leads or commands a group, organization, or country: the leader of a protest group. • (also Leader of the House) (in the UK) a member of the government officially responsible for initiating business in the House of Commons or House of Lords. You're arguing the second definition, which is specific to the UK.
  - zigzigzag 10y ago
    I told you that you wouldn't accept my response, despite it being a data-based rebuttal to a statement of fact in the NYT, and you did not disappoint me. Anyone can lead a protest, especially small ones. To be "the leader of THE opposition" you need supporters in great numbers in any country. Navalny simply doesn't. The polls show quite clearly that other politicians who run against Putin have higher name recognition and more popularity. Just look at yourself - if hard polling data that contradicts a specific statement of fact can't convince you, nothing ever will. You'll always find yourself falling back on trying to argue that technically the NYT's statement doesn't mean what it seems to mean regardless of what counter-example is picked.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

zigzigzag 10y ago

No it doesn't. "Leader of the opposition" has a clear meaning. By your definition Nick Clegg is leader of the British opposition because he was involved in organising a recent big anti-Brexit protest, but nobody in the UK would recognise such a definition. Regardless of what you may personally believe about Russia or its politics, the statement that Navalny is "leader of the opposition" is simply 100% factually false by any hard, observable data.

matt4077 10y ago
leader |ˈlēdər| noun 1 the person who leads or commands a group, organization, or country: the leader of a protest group. • (also Leader of the House) (in the UK) a member of the government officially responsible for initiating business in the House of Commons or House of Lords. You're arguing the second definition, which is specific to the UK.
- zigzigzag 10y ago
  I told you that you wouldn't accept my response, despite it being a data-based rebuttal to a statement of fact in the NYT, and you did not disappoint me. Anyone can lead a protest, especially small ones. To be "the leader of THE opposition" you need supporters in great numbers in any country. Navalny simply doesn't. The polls show quite clearly that other politicians who run against Putin have higher name recognition and more popularity. Just look at yourself - if hard polling data that contradicts a specific statement of fact can't convince you, nothing ever will. You'll always find yourself falling back on trying to argue that technically the NYT's statement doesn't mean what it seems to mean regardless of what counter-example is picked.